Introduction

There is increasing concern with collective memory -- with how the past is remembered. This has renewed debate about how history is remembered and variously rewritten to further particular agendas (Ludmila Isurin, Collective Remembering: memory in the world and in the mind, 2017; Michelle L. Meade, et al, Collaborative Remembering: theories, research, and applications, 2017; Alin Coman, et al., Collective Memory from a Psychological Perspective, International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 22, 2009).

The concern here is with the symbols through which collective memory is enabled, notably in the light of insights into the manner in which this has been achieved in civilizations of the past (Lynne Kelly, The Memory Code, 2016). The question is how to frame the quest for approaches of relevance to the present and the future, as separately argued (In Quest of Mnemonic Catalysts -- for comprehension of complex psychosocial dynamics, 2007). This follows from earlier concern with erosion of collective memory (Societal Learning and the Erosion of Collective Memory, 1980). The exploration here exploits the metaphors through which two contrasting modes of comprehension are frequently framed -- namely those of the "head" and those of the "heart". Those of the "head" are most evident in the mode of rational argument typical of the academic, political, military and business worlds -- caricatured as "talking heads". These are a feature of the optimistic logic of ever greater integrative globalization, most readily symbolized as a sphere and commonly depicted in two dimensions as a circle. Those of the "heart" are most evident in discourse emphasizing lived experience and the associated feelings -- especially of traumatic events of the past. The coherence of these feelings, especially with respect to interpersonal relations, is widely depicted with the symbol of a heart . Those identifying with that modality are typically caricatured in their turn as "bleeding hearts" -- in contrast to those deprecated as being "hard hearted" in priding themselves on being "hard headed".

These two extremes are a challenge to each other which can be usefully caricatured as a continuing battle between the "headless hearts" and the "heartless heads". Proponents of the "head modality" deplore their lack of credibility in the eyes of those attaching far greater weight to the "heart modality". Proponents of the heart modality regret the heartlessness and impersonality characteristic of the models and policies of those of the head modality. Arguably each modality reflects a partial insight whose limitations undermine any more integrative comprehension.

Central to that comprehension might be the nature of care as it is understood within each modality -- compassion for the one, vigilance for the other. These would be matched by the nature of carelessness in each case -- a blindspot with regard to the future and negligence of systemic issues beyond those which attract immediate attention, whether from a head or heart perspective.

It is of course the case that the "heads" may well experience empathy/sympathy and antipathy/animosity for each other to a degree which may be fundamental to their relationships -- and giving rise to epic disputes (Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science: insights from the crisis of science and belief, 2012). Similarly the "hearts" may be called upon to "use their heads" -- notably in navigating romantic affinities. The question is through what richer symbolism the two modalities might be related to enable a more fruitful mode of understanding.

The epic battle between them is now epitomized by their respective approaches to the refugee crisis, most notably in Europe. The "hearts" advocate an open-armed response -- at any cost to the cultures receiving them. The "heads" express caution and increasing resistance -- expressed through populism -- setting aside their economic benefits from the sale of arms to countries engendering such displacement. Curiously both avoid the the long-term implications of unconstrained flow of desperate people from countries with ever increasing populations. Both are careless in that respect.

The reconciliation of the contrasting symbols through the dynamics associated with the cardioid offers a means of highlighting a fourfold set of processes deemed fundamental to group dynamics and psychosocial cohesion -- as exemplified by flocking behaviour and simulation of "boids", as increasingly evident on social media (Dynamically Gated Conceptual Communities, 2004). As framed by Jamie Davies (Life Unfolding: how the human body creates itself, 2014), these are: attraction (promising), repulsion (divorcing/alienation), searching/researching, and alignment (compromise),